Barkley v. City of Detroit
Michigan Court of Appeals
514 N.W.2d 242 (1994)
- Written by Sharon Feldman, JD
Facts
Nine Detroit police officers (collectively, the officers) (plaintiffs) and the City of Detroit (the city) (defendant) were sued in separate civil suits alleging police misconduct. The officers could be represented by the city’s law department if the lawsuits involved the officers’ good-faith performance of their official duties. The city council determined whether an officer would be represented, and the law department was to represent the officer until an adverse determination. Under the officers’ collective-bargaining agreement, the determination was subject to arbitration, and representation was to be provided until the arbitration proceeding concluded. The officers brought an action seeking a declaratory judgment regarding the city’s obligation to provide them with legal counsel. The trial court held that (1) a conflict of interest arises when the city council refuses representation and the employee challenges that decision through arbitration; (2) once a conflict arises, the city should pay for the employee to be represented by independent counsel; and (3) no conflict exists before an adverse determination. On appeal, the officers argued that a conflict arises when the law department represents both the city and the employee in the underlying suit while arguing to the city council that representation should not be provided.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hood, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.